Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    March 31, 2014 1:00am-1:31am PDT

1:00 am
awards the stakeholders. someone wants to build the neighborhoods have an opportunity to review the building plan and an opportunity to oppose the building plan or to amend the building plan by passing this legislation it will deny due process it will undermine the value of my home. i know what i left and bought into >> thank you. next speaker. >> thank you. good afternoon. i'm frank i'm president of the monterey heights association. most of the residents in my area we have concerns we not have expressed the same thing as mr. chamberlain we have cc and rs as
1:01 am
well that restrict us to single-family units. people move to the neighborhood to profit so far as the lifestyle and we're talking about 4 house we feel there's a lot of exam passion for people that applying it as a blanket policy would effect create different results for different areas and our area would be a drawback. we're certainly endorsing the benefits of the gentleman >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm karen. i'm a board member of the balboa improvement club that represents 32 hundred homes were in
1:02 am
district 7 in an rh one zoned neighborhood. this is y where homes are in reach of the middle-class we have many young families in the morning young families working to school. and the legislation will not create more affordable housing and not keep families in the city i think it's quite the opposite. i believe few owners will want to have the bigger fees it will open the doors for speculators if i want to sell my home i could sell it for two homes instead of one. this will increase the value of the property and speculators will be able to anti price
1:03 am
families which is the opposite of what we would like in our neighborhood. this will drive more families out of the city. if you're sincere about keeping families in the city please vote against this legislation unless the rh one neighborhoods are exempted >> thank you very much. next speaker. i have a few more cards let me read them off (calling names) >> you did okay i'm not sorry, sir go ahead. >> good afternoon. i'm o marrow i'm with the asian caucus. the caucus strongly supports the proposal for our community that include protecting immigrants and have seniors and long starpd
1:04 am
resident of the city to be able to legalize their homes. it was based on a community survey that took place in 2011 about the time the housing market was bought out a 35 percent discount u discount from the market rate according to hud. this survey was an internal assessment we knew of the housing stock but wanted to take a glance of the people in the home we found astonishing information like the chinese progress association and last year in may when we launched our report at the filipino center supervisor avalos joined us and
1:05 am
he saw this as prove what he saw to be the county he represents. it preserves affordable housing and we feel it's balanced and ann is incentive sensitive - sensitive we've found 51 percent of householders have children in hair homes >> supervisor kim has a question. sir. supervisor kim >> thank you. i appreciate all of the work that was put into the legislation and it's really clear when you read through it a a lot of indication to protect tenants that maybe in a situation your talking about. and another asian law caucus
1:06 am
staff member talked about this tenant. i guess one of the questions in the situation that it was spoken about easily that was evicted how would this legislation help the tenant in that situation >> in this somewhere the landlord would have the option of legal listing the unit. >> right my guess this landlord wouldn't have gone through the legitimization process it's not mandate that's a volunteer program. >> that's correct we feel the intent of this legislation we've got to be careful in trying to represent homeowner interests this is about homeowner stabilization so thankfully we
1:07 am
have a mechanism in place but the idea is to take care of a good percentage of secondarily unit that need anytimeal changes. >> what's the current, you know, if you were renting out your unit. >> the housing we've found from 2000 to 2008 we understand that many homeowners found that the sedentary use of income for those homeowners in order to stabilize this we feel this is important for them. >> that doesn't really answer any questions why homeowners
1:08 am
aren't being threatened from dbi my understanding the type of case we don't highly enforce so aga again, what's the sensitive for homeowners to go into this and they can't pass on the costs. i'm glad i understand why they're in the legislation i guess it's unclear to me what impact this legislation is going it have >> admittedly your pointing out something that's important but tenant displacement our making a very important point and i think there's other discussions not part of this legislation to create for homeowner incentives
1:09 am
to create the financing they need we have to take into account those considerations and hopefully with the mayor's office with their executive directors promoting those with, see the incentives in place. >> i know when sxhoovs sxhoovs was talking about the legitimization of in law units you're in district 11 something he's looking at i'm not saying i'm supporting this using the trust fund dollars if there's a system for which homeowners can apply based on need, etc. so, so there is an incentive to legalize our unit currently i don't see why a homeowner would go through this process it's just not clear what the final
1:10 am
outcome is going to be. if you legalize units rent will got up and it will be challenging for that and one the marines why we legalize in law units their affordable on the market and this would count aqua we like about in law units >> if i could make a quick comment. >> supervisor chiu. >> you talk about the fact that property taxation increase because the value of the property is going to increase and we're trying to reduce the code obstacles to legitimization but to provide certainty to the owners. we've heard from owners whether or not the city is going to enforce they want to know their
1:11 am
rights in the don't ask don't tell and we try to do it to reduce the administrative fees but let me say there's been a lot speculated we're going to see on numerous civilization or too much change is going to happen i think the answer is in the middle we've tried to strike a balance by making this divorce we're allowing owners who can make the life changing challenges but we're not forcing folks and i think if it turns out we need additional endocuments we can look at whether or not there's a way for the city or lenders to help pay for the owners costs. so this is an important step but
1:12 am
i won't arresting august that tomorrow you may see 40 thousand in-laws been legalizing but we'll adjust. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon i'm sorry you ruth. and live in balboa terrace area and own property in two other parts of the city. i've seen people do to property in balboa terrace and other neighborhoods is make you want to cry. i remember one resident said that he was getting permission from the community to put a room upstairs when he finished there
1:13 am
were 4 rooms there. and although the parking in balboa terrace a very good except when the fans pick up the kids in the neighborhood. at the other neighborhood where my daughter lives parking is gross because people have 6 and 7 other families living in illegal or semi illegal units. i'm very much against this. thank you >> thank you very much. next speaker >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is bringing get i'm from balboa terrace. i oppose the two rh zoning rule that's been sold as a remedy
1:14 am
>> can you speak into the mike. >> can you hear me now. >> yes. >> i oppose that legislation. presently the projects are prohibited from being built near the rh one neighborhoods once it's changed to rh 2 that building will be permissible. there's a california statute that prevents this as west of twin peaks. the subdivisions that economist of hoa west of twin peaks was specifically set up to increase density and set back lots and
1:15 am
drainage sewer systems were designed by adopt to prevent this rule. this rule has been promoted and paid by wealthy developers who doesn't have the city's benefit in heart. we're understaffed and in our city department we've cashed out retirees without hiring. it's the due diligence of the board of supervisors to listen to the majority of homeowners and rejecting this new proposed ordinance that will make our neighborhoods on more intense and hazardous and less safe. thank you >> thank you. next speaker and. >> good afternoon, supervisors
1:16 am
i'm phil i live in haishtd if you want to try out this ordinance tryout my neighborhood the reason there's very few single families homes in hate ashbury. a lot of the quote in law homes are apartment we don't have in the hate is parking. and the thing that restricts adding an in law unit it requires an extra parking space that's impossible to do in the residents in the hate. there's a always a as an landlord like myself there's that things in the back of the shoulder if you're not doing
1:17 am
something illegal could something happen one day. i think most of the landlords i know in this district would prefer to be legal and prefer to know exactly what their rights are and what's going to happen. it also you know the main reason for most of those in law units is the parking and the hate is also a place there's 8 different buses that run not corridor. so if you may be it's not the best legislation for all the city but in the hate it would be excellent. thank you >> thank you. thank you tim on behalf of the action coalition and support for secondary units are in our dpoo
1:18 am
dna. i think supervisor chiu deserves enormous credit for this legislation today. what we have to remember the reason we're here for decades san francisco has persisted in a silly day. if we keep o illegal they won't be built >> 40 thousand it is not the right number. i think we have something there's an enormous supply of housing that's kept in the shadows. i'd like to note as a west sideer myself no where are those being built for frequently in the west of twin peaks neighborhood there's a ground floor door i know a block out in
1:19 am
the 030s i've watched 3 in one blockbusting put in at one time. while i hear we have to somehow get a carve out for the rh one and 2 on the west side to pretend this won't be built. maybe it has a modest effect there's not a flood of people to have them legalized but from the city's precipitation i don't understand why we have a rule that's go forward. this is a very sensible step in the right direction. >> thank you. next speaker. i have 3 additional cards (calling names)
1:20 am
>> (speaking foreign language.) >> i'm going to ask my aid to translate. >> so the speakers said she's a landlord and property owner and she's afraid of the challenges of legalizing the unit because if she ever minded a family to move into the unit she'll have a challenge to reconvert that unit and that's the challenge she'd prefer not to rent out the unit. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. thank you.
1:21 am
my name is bryan i'm thirty years old and i'm a fifth generation san franciscan. i'm going to read a statement i wrote supervisor chiu thanking him for the legislation. i'm writing you today because i'm thankful to pass this legislation that will make the in law unit legal. i currently live on listing bone street in san francisco, california and in the excelsior district. i rent an in law unit from a friend their preschool teachers i work at a nonprofit and don't make much money we all eat diner together. the in law unit has its own entrance and we're close and we
1:22 am
have a real householder unit. the in law unit is you up u upgraded and has ata's it's heating system they recently received a complaint about me living there it's in our interests to make sure the in law unit is permitted without considering a lot of costs and i would say i'd hate to see this not pass. i have two dogs and would find a place that would accept dogs. i greatly appreciate our efforts to pass this legislation and i hope my situation involving
1:23 am
thelogically in law unit will be a thing of the past >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> hi, i'm tonya i live in park side sunset neighborhood. i'm definitely in favor of this legislation. my had you and i saved to buy this home. despite a lot of common thought not everybody who rides the google bus is rich. i'm a stay home enemy with two kids my husband is a sole proprietor. we have an in law in our home i didn't understand the ramification so i'm following the law. my husband and i will not break the law we're not renting out
1:24 am
our illegal unit and it also exposes my family to, you know, legal costs or costs if i get illegal income from a tenant illegally they can come back and sue me after the fact. that motivates me as a homeowner to legalize my unit so my family will not be exposed to that kind of cost with the tenant come back to collect the money that they paid to me in rent. everybody lose at that point. my family doesn't have the extra income if this elective passes the city will collect important taxes and i can rent legally.
1:25 am
thank you very much >> thank you very much. next speaker >> i'm josephine i'm with the asian-american board. originally a year and a half ago i was advocating mr. david chu to drink forward this legislation but we are disappointed not only because of the reason that the original reason was what the last lady talks about extortion that happens that asian-american immigrant landlords are being sued right and left and heartbreaking stories but because of the prvbt factors that supervisor kim talked about it's very expensive it has cost a lot of money to bring up to
1:26 am
code and if we have to pay for relocation fees back and forth and the downside once you've different up the illegal illegal listed unit it's not subdivided to sell or tic them or, you know, do anything with it but they'll be forest part of the rental property you'll lose the rent control exemption forever and that's something we wanted really bad it turns out we can't use this. i hope we can make small modifications to make it fair to both sides not just done in a volume. we're able to co- exist and be happy.
1:27 am
thank you >> thank you very much mr. caan. >> hi, i'm jay with the san francisco realtors. we want to applaud supervisor chiu for this expanding the city. i live in an in law unit, however, without two specific a amendment it traps small property owners. the two specific amendments the first one the elective creates an arrest tray inclusion that specific in law units will not that's specific becausetions will immediately jump once you legalize the unit and in addition building code improvements will be significant
1:28 am
20 to $30,000 but no prove or disprove will not be able to do this. the second one is a remerger the in law unit are cheap because their flexibility the homeowners can expand them as their family adapts but the current process t is impossible and once you legalize the units the homeowners know they can't take the change back. the property values and property taxed for highways that are legalized jump because the reassessment is whatever you, you change the status of your house it will go to the records office. this legislation is good for those who can afford it but not
1:29 am
many people can afford it. we suggest those two amendments be put into the legislation >> could you repeat those two amendments. >> the amendments are to remove the inclusion of the in law units right they don't pass through costs and the second to add administrator review to the emerge process for the in law units and to remove them from the exemption if there's a no fault eviction on the unit they have to wait 5 to 10 years to remerge. >> supervisor cowen. >> thank you, mr.. >> your suggestions are they written down. >> we can submit those to our office. i'm not sure it's in the file i want to give you an opportunity
1:30 am
to put it in the file >> absolutely we'll be happy to do that. >> so we can understand this issue i appreciate the desire to change that but this board of supervisors passed the legislation around the topic and we've adapted that standard. i understand your organization and action have sued the city and that's in the court and my prospective when it gets resolved that will have an impact but i'm not trying to create a new standard but which we merge or not remerge >> we're simple adapting a standard that this board voted on. >> we know the land use economy passed that without the in law unit and that being said this e since this legislation we're